KARACHI: The Sindh High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan seeking formation of a 10-judge bench to hear its petition filed against the recruitment process in various departments of the provincial government.

A two-judge bench comprising Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio strongly deprecated the offensive and scandalous remarks of the lawyer for the petitioners against one of the judges and judiciary.

The bench also turned down another request of the petitioner’s counsel Tariq Mansoor seeking recusal of Justice Agha from hearing the petition on account of his perceived impartibility.

The lawyer argued that this case required formation of a 10-judge bench of SHC and this bench should make a request to the chief justice for this purpose.

However, the lawyer for the respondents contended that it was a regular case which involved no overly complex questions of law to justify formation of a larger bench.

The bench in its order observed that there were no undue legal complexities or other compelling reasons which would justify this petition being referred to the chief justice to form a 10-judge bench to hear the petition.

It further noted that such request was not made when the petition was filed but instead has been made after eight separate hearings, which indicated that it was an afterthought and prima facie with intention of delaying the hearing of this petition as the lawyer for petitioners had obtained an ex-parte stay order at the first hearing on this petition.

The bench further said that the lawyer for petitioners appeared to be using a tactic through his misbehaviour in court attempted to cow down on the judges so that they may mark this case not before them and ultimately the lawyer might get a bench of his own choice, which conduct cannot be countenanced and must be discouraged.

On Wednesday, the bench said when it asked Mr Mansoor to make his submissions on maintainability of the petition rather than doing so he started to make scurrilous, scandalous, offensive and insulting remarks against this bench and the judiciary which tirade continued unabated for about 15 to 20 minutes despite he was being asked on numerous occasions to leave the rostrum.

However, the bench said that by showing maximum judicial restraint largely on the account of young age of the lawyer and to avoid potentially damage to his career, it decided by skin of its teeth against initiating such proceedings.

Published in Dawn, June 2nd, 2022